The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) broke the story that the $12.9 billion-a-year natural and organic foods retailer Whole Foods Market had a policy of "don't ask, don't tell" when it comes to "conventional" -- or non-organic -- produce being grown in fields spread with sewage sludge, euphemistically called "biosolids." Certified organic produce cannot be fertilized with sewage sludge, which is the industrial and hospital waste and human excrement flushed down the drains and later -- in some cases -- spread on some crops.

Since this story broke, nearly 8,000 activists and PRWatch readers have sent emails to Whole Foods executives asking the company to require its suppliers to disclose this information and to label produce grown in sewage sludge so that customers can make informed decisions.

Mario Ciasulli, a semi-retired engineer and home cook living in North Carolina whom CMD profiled in December 2012, blew the whistle on Whole Foods' don't-ask, don't-tell policy. As soon as he found out that shopping at Whole Foods was no protection against this potential contamination unless he could afford to buy only certified organic produce, he worked extensively to engage Whole Foods on this issue. He has insisted that management address his concerns about potential contamination of non-organic produce, price barriers to organic produce for those who are concerned, and the difficulty of finding out what non-organic produce may have been grown in soil fertilized with sewage sludge without labeling and accountability.

In late 2013, Whole Foods announced a new set of standards for the fresh produce and flowers it sells. Sewage sludge was not mentioned in the announcement, but Ciasulli received word from the company that "[p]rohibiting the use of biosolids will be part of our core requirements. All of our suppliers will be compliant with the core requirements by the time we roll out the program." A follow-up email to Ciasulli indicated, "This initial release was meant to be high-level. There are far too many nuances to include on a press release."

This month, Whole Foods Market spokesperson Kate Lowery confirmed to CMD that the new standards will eventually prohibit the use of "biosolids."

Sewage sludge is created by all of the human waste flushed down the toilet and sinks -- which includes all the pharmaceutical residues from all the prescriptions and over-the-counter drugs taken by the men, women, and children in the city using the sewage system -- and all the material corporations flush down the drain, which can include industrial materials like solvents and other chemicals, plus medical waste. The water is removed from the sludge, and it is heated to kill certain bacteria, but the heating of the sewage sludge does not remove dissolved metals like silver, flame retardants (which California recently listed as a carcinogen, or cancer-causing agent), and other chemicals that remain in the sewage sludge sprayed on the fields where some "conventional" food crops are grown.

In addition to flame retardants and metals, sewage sludge has been shown to contain toxic substances and other contaminants such as endocrine disruptors, pharmaceutical residues, phthalates, industrial solvents, resistant pathogens, and perfluorinated compounds. Some of these contaminants can "bioaccumulate" in plants grown in sludge-contaminated soil and remain as residue on vegetables in contact with the soil.

These plants are then eaten by children and adults.

Whole Foods Market's press release states, the chain "will present customers with a three-tier rating system and begin displaying ratings of 'good,' 'better' and 'best' throughout produce and floral departments. With the help of sustainable agriculture experts and with considerable input from suppliers, Whole Foods Market developed a science-based index to measure performance on important sustainable farming topics, including:
Pest management, including prohibited and restricted pesticides
Farmworker welfare
Pollinator protection
Water conservation and protection
Soil health
Ecosystems
Biodiversity
Waste, recycling and packaging
Energy
Climate"

Whole Food's prohibition against produce grown in fields spread with sewage sludge is a major victory for consumers, CMD readers who contacted Whole Foods, and particularly the tenacious Ciasulli, who illustrates the positive change that one determined person can make.

"I am encouraged that Whole Foods has made the commitment to ban biosolids in their produce in 2014, and that the company will require supporting documentation from their suppliers," Ciasulli told CMD. "We expect Whole Foods to follow through in a real and meaningful way."

General Motors? ( just kidding - though anyone looking to a future - a viable prosperous healthy future - a future more than a century hence and continuing beyond - should really be saying no to the majority of GMO practices in existence to date )

So, your contention is that this IS a win for the anti-GMO crowd? Well, let's examine the General Mills/Cheerios subject a little more in-depth rather than just copy-pasting shit and calling it good.

In late 2012 General Mills donated somewhere between $520,000 (according to Rodale news) and $1.1 million (according to Mercola) to help defeat California's GMO labeling bill, Prop 37.

At the beginning of December 2012, General Mills' Cheerios brand released a Facebook app asking "fans" to "show what Cheerios mean to them." The app allowed users to create their own placards using Cheerios' trademarked black font on a yellow background, where dots and periods featured little cheerios. One day later, in a move oddly reminiscent of the recent JPMorgan Twitter debacle, the app was abruptly pulled after thousands of angry "fans" expressed their disgust over the company's betrayal. According to Activist Post, "You could literally spend all day looking at 'Recent Posts by Others' on Cheerios' Facebook page - they are nearly all complaints about GMOs and declarations of boycotts."

Fast forward one year. In response to the backlash against Cali Prop 37, the GMA (Grocery Manufacturers Association) created an illegal "slush fund," the 'Defense of Brand Strategic Account," in part to "better shield individual companies from attack." Donations were laundered thru this account. General Mills donated $598,819 to this account, and as we all know, this illegal fund was exposed, resulting in more backlash against the industry, including General Mills.

My point is General Mills has been feeling the heat over the GMO issue for well over a year, so what do they do? Take the only product from their extensive product line that was ALREADY >99% GM-free (there are no GM oats, yet), claim they've started sourcing their corn starch and sugar from non-GMO suppliers, and release "GMO-free Cheerios" to much fanfare.

If, and I stress IF, they do source their corn starch and sugar from non-GM sources, this could be considered a very small victory for the anti-GMO crowd, but considering companies like General Mills buy their ingredients literally by the trainload, we have to take the company's word for it when they claim the corn starch and sugar will be GM-free. Barring an independent test at some point, the consumer will never really know. And this doesn't even touch upon the unhealthy nature of processed sugar, GM or not. So they switch from very toxic sugar to less toxic sugar and call it a win for the consumer.

Can we trust the word of General Mills? Considering their history of deceptive advertising, I'll take that with a healthy grain of salt. Their product "TOTAL Blueberry Pomegranate" comes to mind, a cereal that contained neither blueberries nor pomegranate. You know what would've been a great marketing move, that might have garnered more praise? Announce that they intended to replace ALL the sugar and corn starch for all their products from non-GMO sources.

Let's look at their press release about the "new" Cheerios and some very telling comments within:

First off, they repeat the erroneous industry talking point that there is "a broad consensus" that genetically modified foods are safe to eat. There is no such consensus; in fact, quite the contrary. Stay tuned for my upcoming post on the subject. The point here is General Mills is decidedly pro-GMO.

Second, they leave themselves a convenient "out" by stating, not once but twice, that "there may always be some chance of some small amount of GM coming from some other source, such as in shipping or manufacturing." Emphasis mine.

And third, they have no intention of modifying any of their other cereals in a move towards GM-free products, claiming "the widespread use of GM seed in crops such as corn, soy, or beet sugar would make reliably moving to non-GM ingredients difficult, if not impossible," a statement that's patently untrue (consider the brand Nature's Path, whose entire cereal line, to my knowledge, are all non-GMO).

And lastly, Cheerios, like most breakfast cereals, is chemically-laden toxic faux food that no one in their right mind would feed to their children.

In short, this is nothing more than a PR move designed to counter the recent backlash against the company by jumping on the anti-GMO bandwagon.

And what "certain conditions" would that be, in your opinion? If other manufacturers follow suit? Not looking to be argumentative, just looking for some clarity. The article does make some other good points, though, like Mexico's decision, for one.

Personally, I don't see much coming from this except General Mills will sell more Cheerios.

Oh, I see. So you think it's a win for the consumer if "General Mills sells more Cheerios." How very corporatist of you.

See what happens when you concentrate more on being a smart ass instead of just giving someone a straight answer?

What you MEANT to say was my second to last sentence, about Mexico's decision. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt anyway. Perhaps you meant exactly what you said.

I read thru this thread more than once before I posted my last comment. I always do. The Mexico comment was from GF. I asked your opinion, not hers.

But don't worry about it, shoozie, you've said enough already. And hey, I bumped your thread again, so it's a win, right? Consider it my belated Christmas present, but any other bumping will be all yours. Catch my drift?

How is Renneye a puppet? She's a long time user here, just like so many other people you harass and call puppets. Your cover is blown. Why do you stay here? Are you 15 years old? Why harass people and troll this forum in this way? Occupy is about building communities, not destroying them.

You're way too paranoid, shooz. I'm not attempting to bait you in any way. It's no secret on this forum that GMO's are something I have more than a passing interest in, so when I asked your opinion, I was being sincere. That's why I added "Not trying to be argumentative" to my question, and why I added the comment about Mexico's decision being a good one.

No insult either. That was a smart ass comment. "Since you won't scroll up" was a veiled insult to me and anyone interested in an actual discussion would've left that off. Or perhaps said something like "I think that Mexico decision was a win for the consumer." Or "Yep, if other manufacturers follow suit, etc."

But since you're being your usual vague self, I have to ask, not so much for me but the rest of the forum. Was it my LAST sentence or SECOND to last sentence that you meant? I'm pretty sure you meant the second to last but other readers might not be so sure.

And just to prove I'm not baiting you, I won't even respond to your reply. I just figured you might want to clarify lest other readers think you're shilling for General Mills.

Gnomunny, on the forum since October 14, 2011; builder, on the forum since October 6, 2011; Shadz66, on the forum since October 10, 2011 (and LiveStream since September 17, 2011!); hchc, on the forum since October 29, 2011; flip, on the forum since October 15, 2011 And, all HARASSED and lied about. Constantly HARASSED and lied about!!!! Not to mention all the people driven off, who were true occupiers, including HitGirl, Gillian, Undergdog, Middleaged and TrevorMnemonic, to name a few.

beautifulworld - Oct. 13, 2011. Odin - Nov. 19, 2011. Matt - Oct. 4, 2011. Kropotkin left solely because of the mods. Even LeoYo hasn't been immune. It definitely suggests an agenda when people are deliberately chased away rather than encouraged to join.

Recently I was going thru old threads from 2011 trying to find a comment I had made about Guy Fawkes and was surprised, and a little dismayed, at all the names of people no longer here. I'm not saying they were all banned or harassed, just that it's sad so many people that used to post are no longer here. For whatever reason, they felt it wasn't panning out and no longer worth their time. Sad, really.

I just read as much of the nonsense here as I could stand. I really do not know why those two do what they do. such a waste- maybe not - they have caused me to go away for long periods of time so maybe that is a good thing - for all concerned!

that childishness has no business here - and you have so much free time that you can search through responses to others? my experience is that those who threaten and bully are really wimps - would you like my address and you can stop by to see who does the slapping?

I remember that exchange quite well. One of the most productive I ever had here. Penguento had written a lot of good info about patent law. Some long, detailed, well written comments. A real shame they were removed from the forum.

Yep, that was a great thread at first and penguento, being a lawyer, had posted some great info about it. Knowing just a tad about patents myself, I was sure others would find his info, interesting if not useful. It started out great and by the end it had turned into a total train wreck. At the time I was not yet reinstated so I couldn't comment, but I watched the whole thing go down.

Had anyone been following that thread like I was that night, they would've seen what an embarrassment it turned into. Good thing it was late at night because it sure made the forum look bad.

It's a real shame people like you are being protected on this forum. Your teenage-like troll behavior has really put a dent into Occupy. This forum should be taken down. It has become a liability for Occupy. People come here, see your trolling that's protected by the site owners, and believe that this is what Occupy is all about. False advertisement at its worse. The ideal would be to fix the forum, but it doesn't seem those in charge want to do that. It's as if this forum was designed with the purpose of making Occupy look bad.
↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

Ahhh.. It's you. You are the liability. Be a good boy and bring it around again.

Come on dingleberry, you can do better than that. You're a passive aggressive puppet.

You think beautifulworld is a puppet? Not only did she join this forum before you, she also thinks for herself. Unlike you who's just like the other members of the twinkle team and dishing out a badly written Pro-Dem Shill Script written by a bunch of flunked out teenagers.

The worst part is that you're absolutely boring. nondescript. unoriginal in every way. The types of insults your use are the most common unoriginal ones. Just lame. At least if your trolling was a bit interesting than you would have some redeeming qualities.

No, moron, just someone who cares about the 99% more than myself. You wouldn't know passive aggressive if it hit you in the face because you are uber agressive. You are one sick individual and you need to stop your bullying. I don't care who you work for or who on this forum protects you. You need to stop.

You don't care about anything. You are passive aggressive and I am 100% aggressive. You're job is to blow smoke up the others ass. Grow the fuck up-shill. The fact that you are standing there and defending a PR firm makes it all the better.

Thankfully, 'Beautifulworld', our shining star and humanity loving forum darling, has rightly spoken her mind and is to be commended, to be sure.

I haven't said too much... yet. I felt like I was a little, hmmm, shall we say...repetitious. ;-)

But, sometimes...you just gotta knock 'em over the head before they get it, ya know?!

It boggles my mind how 3 or 4 people here, think that they, better than anyone else, can figure out and fix all that is wrong in this world...despite that thousands upon thousands of well-intentioned, ivy league educated politicians over a 150 year span haven't been able to do it in a way that brings peace to all.

...and these pseudo intellect, armchair politicians on a forum...where they act like junk-yard dogs snarling and showing their teeth at anyone who gets too close to 'their' fence...these bozos that have chased almost everyone off...think they can do it, and all by themselves?

I mean, the self-aggrandizement. The narcissism. It's staggering. Psychopathic even.

I hope all is well in Alaska and elsewhere in your 'community' work. Time with family is tres importante, but do check in again periodically, 'cause I'm not finished taking the bull by the horns.

Don't forget about me! I was the first to identify the problem of the twinkle team. I helped get ride the forum of conspiracy theories. I promoted the idea of building a Bridge to the Ground (something we should still do). I promoted the idea of Occupy creating anarcho-syndicalist businesses in order to put our ideas into practice. I promoted the idea of a web forum where everyone can moderate by themselves in order for everyone to be able to write what they want and read what they want. I promoted the idea of eliminating censorship and promoting freedom of speech instead.

Trying to inject humor here is not a bad thing, but you know who you are and you know the damage you have done. The 99% still matter to me above all else. I've had enough of the disgusting way this forum is being moderated and I've been here long enough to have a right to say so.

In screwed news... Republicans in Missouri began the new legislative year with a bang. Rather than starting the year off focusing on new jobs or boosting their economy, Right-wing lawmakers in that state are fighting to pass “right-to-work-for-LESS” legislation. Despite the fact that Governor Jay Nixon has promised to veto that bill if it should pass, Republican House Speaker Tim Jones is pushing forward with the anti-labor legislation. For years, the Missouri Republican Party has been advocating so-called “right-to-work” bills, like those recently passed in Indiana and Michigan. Workers in states that have enacted “right-to-work-for-LESS” have seen their yearly wages decline by an average of $1500, and their health benefits and pensions get slashed. These bills do nothing but benefit big business and destroy unions, and the voters of Missouri need to make it clear that they will not accept any “right-to-work-for-LESS” laws from their legislators.

Shooz says "So is that," then copy-pastes a blurb from Thom Hartmann's Saturday On the News segment without giving proper accreditation to or a link back to the Truthout source, in clear violation of Truthout's copyright. I'd suggest not making a habit of that:

You think this is a recent development in Missouri? Hartmann, and by extension you since you posted it, minimize the situation. Hartmann says, "For years, the Missouri Republican Party has been advocating so-called “right-to-work” bills . . . " Years? Yeah, try decades. Four decades, at least. Labor's been fighting Right-to-Work in Missouri since at least the time I first joined my union, which would've been the late '70's. And you want to know what else is hurting labor here? Undocumented workers, who have exacerbated the problem in Missouri (and MI), especially construction, labor and landscaping, courtesy NAFTA. Interesting that you leave that little item out of your conversations about labor. I can only assume that you're okay with illegal immigrants doing their part in forcing wages down, since "endorsement thru exclusion" is one of your mantras. And if you think the undocumented haven't been playing a part in it, you haven't been paying enough attention. Think "subcontractors." But it is possible I missed your references to undocumented workers and their complicity in lower wages since I usually just ignore you.

And you consider Hartmann's blurb a PR move? You equate a decades-long struggle for worker's rights with a General Mills press release about a non-event? Whadaya stoopid? That is an insult to labor to suggest it's anywhere close. But then, it wasn't your intention to insult labor, it was to bait me into a discussion about it.

I came on this thread to talk about the Cheerios announcement. You might've read my well thought out analysis of the situation, but you didn't absorb it. I imagine when you see a message box with my name in it, or some of your other favorite forum members, your eyes glaze over. In a nutshell, General Mills is pro-GMO, has no intention of changing any of their other products, and if someone finds a "little" GMO material in their new GMO-free Cheerios, well, it must've happened somewhere "down the line."

It's a cheap PR move designed to lessen the heat they've been feeling and get back some lost customers all the while working behind the scenes with the industry (including Monsanto) to get a neutered federal standard for voluntary minimal labeling. Your conversation with Zen at the top is funny. So naive. "Finally a corp listens to the will of the people" and "butting heads with Monsanto." Hell, Monsanto representatives were almost certainly sitting in the General Mills boardroom while the Cheerios deal was being formulated.

You want to talk about Cheerios or GMO's in general? I'm up for it. You want to play your silly games? I'm done.

Now, I think you owe organized labor an apology for trying to compare their noble, decades-long struggle with "New Cheerios! Now With Less Toxins!"